Films that remind you of Pan-X

[George Mann]

I am thinking of brushing up on my development skills by shooting some Tri-X at 400, which I will develop tumbler-style in D-76 (1:1). If I remember right, it should be @ 68-degrees, and agitated every 30 seconds for 10 minutes?

 

[George Mann]

Oh, and I am thinking of picking up a Leica II, with a coated Elmar for my B&W shooting.

 

[George Mann]

For now, I will be using my Nikkormat FT2, with an H.C. Auto 50 f2. What other films produce good mid-tones with moderate (realistic) contrast?

 

[George Mann]

I have a Zeiss Contaflex III, and the only b&w filter I have for it is a Yellow/Green. I have no idea what it will look like, or what films will work best with it.

 

[George Mann]

Where did everyone go?

 

[Bill Burk]

I am thinking of brushing up on my development skills by shooting some Tri-X at 400, which I will develop tumbler-style in D-76 (1:1). If I remember right, it should be @ 68-degrees, and agitated every 30 seconds for 10 minutes?

That will work fine. If you like, set your speed at 250 (and only use 400 if it gets dark and you need to handhold). I personally develop for 13:30.. but I’m a weirdo. 10 minutes would be fine, just know a little longer won’t hurt anything.

 

[Bill Burk]

I have a Zeiss Contaflex III, and the only b&w filter I have for it is a Yellow/Green. I have no idea what it will look like, or what films will work best with it.

Tri-X will look natural with that filter.

 

[Bill Burk]

You will notice, however, that Tri-X has more grain than Panatomic-X. When I want “fine grain” in a print, Tri-X (and even TMAX-400) only work for me if I jump up in format from 35mm to 120 or 4x5.

I’d use “any” slower film for fine grain, and if you want to satisfy that look... Don’t use the Tri-X. TMAX 100 works “fine” at 64 with no filter, as a substitute for Panatomic-X with a yellow filter.

 

[John51]

I don't know how to answer this one. I still shoot Panatomic-X

I've got a roll of 620 Pan X, expired 1952.

What asa would you suggest?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I routinely shoot TMax 400 in 35mm; but I print 35mm small, typically full-frame onto 8x10 paper. ACROS grain is a tad better. TMax 100 has less edge acutance unless developed specifically for sake of it. All of these I'd classify as birdshot. Tri-X is buckshot in any format. If I want fine, smooth grain in a slightly larger print from 35mm, I've used either Efke 25 (now discontinued) or Pan F. But grain is just one consideration. Sometimes I want visible grain, sometimes I don't. 35mm is a fun option for me, an occasional change of pace, but amounts to only about 1% of my work. It's my casual alto-ego to big camera work.

 

[George Mann]

I usually don't want to shoot a grainy film, but sometimes it fits the subject and mood.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I shot exactly one roll of 120 Tri-X last year, for a certain set of rainy day subjects where I wanted conspicuous grain. But I shot a lot of TMY, TMX, and especially ACROS, a bit of PanF and Delta 3200 too. But Delta 3200 has softer grain than TX.
With large format sheet film, grain is less an issue, though I avoid Tri-X.

 

[CMoore]

Careful work, and a developer like replenished X-Tol.
Let's see if this download of a resized, and not yet spotted scan does the film justice:
View attachment 232515

Awesome frame.!
I really dig stuff like that... Industrial/Commercial. Charles Sheeler is one of my Heroes in that arena.
Is that a dam or a power-plant of some sort.?

35mm is a fun option for me, an occasional change of pace, but amounts to only about 1% of my work. It's my casual alto-ego to big camera work.

 

[MattKing]

Awesome frame.!
I really dig stuff like that... Industrial/Commercial. Charles Sheeler is one of my Heroes in that arena.
Is that a dam or a power-plant of some sort.?

It is the Powerhouse at Stave Falls - a National Heritage location.
https://www.bchydro.com/community/r...-centres/stave-falls-visitor-centre.html.html
There are quite a few shots from there sprinkled through the Photrio Galleries.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I grew up around big hydroelectric projects, and my dad supervised some major dam and canal projects. But industrial subject matter per se is not what interests me, but how Sheeler composed things. He was essentially a Constructivist, no doubt influenced by Cubism, and one of the first to think of photography as potentially being a first cousin to what was going on in abstract art .... but by no means THE first. That honor goes to Carlton Watkins, who, in his most prescient big albumen contact prints, learned to layer landscape themes in a sophisticated manner even before abstract painting was beginning to sneak through the keyhole with Cezanne and his own geometrically iconized landscapes. Most pontificators pay attention only to the "frontier" mentality of Watkins, and don't relate to just how sophisticated some of his finest compositions were : Constructivist before Constructivism ever formally existed.